User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 59

  1. #31
    Junior Member DestroyTheSpineless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Straylight View Post
    I also don't like parties, and I have no interest in things that I have no interest in. (Fe not valued) Like you, I resist authority and being told what to do. (Se not valued) Like you, I do not function well in social situations. (Fe not valued) Like you, I am extremely analytical and categorical in my approach to everything. (Logic highly valued) Like you, I prefer a structured approach to things. (Rational) Like you, I consider myself practical. (Logical above ethical) However, all of these things are so generic that the same could be said of half a dozen different socionics personality types, and almost every single logical type.

    You say that you don't need an emotionally positive environment, but let's not get so swept up in socionics that we forget common sense for a moment. There is no human being, except one that is malfunctioning somehow, who does not react poorly to exposure to negativity. I invite you to study abnormal psychology, and general psychology, not just personality psychology, so that we do not lose touch with the basic facts about the human mind in an attempt to make sense of this theoretical system. It would be absurd to assume that ILIs do not react poorly to being mistreated, for example, or that ILIs do not appreciate positive reinforcement. Although I have met many socionics fanatics who seem to think that they are above the predictions of classical and operant conditioning, as researched by Pavlov, and B.F. Skinner (especially ILIs love to believe this nonsense about themselves), I assure you, it is not true.

    Be prepared to drop certain parts of socionics where they are too convoluted to be made sensible, even if it leaves large gaps in the whole model. It is better to simply reject the premises of a theory and challenge the assumptions of the entire system, especially when a simpler explanation will do just as well. It is by doing this that progress is made and the theory is improved. Never distort facts to prove a theory simply because you have invested yourself into understanding that theory. I realize you have invested yourself (already a year and a half you said), and that is dangerous to do because now it easily becomes a sunk-cost fallacy to tell yourself that you should continue to dig deeper instead of making adjustments or just abandoning the entire enterprise. Be very self-aware when it comes to this cognitive bias, as it is a deadly trap from which you will not escape if you ignore it, which will totally corrupt your understanding of the whole system - and in turn, that corruption will then spread to other systems as you begin to form connections with this one based on what you thought you knew for certain. One mistake at the foundation, and the entire mountain you build falls apart one day, and you will desperately fight to keep it from doing so because by then it becomes your life's work.

    So many people have already fallen into that trap on this website and others, so just be careful. Take my advice and just say "this is good enough" and study other systems. Then maybe eventually you can come back to this one down the road when you are wiser and older and know more about the world in general.
    How can you type yourself as LII when you affirm that you don't value Fe? It's your suggestive function and it should be the one you seek to make your Ti/Fe axis stronger. You're right about not considering some overly-complicated Socionics aspects (such as Reinin dichotomies, I hate those) but functions are the basis. You can't just ignore them. Also, I don't think that being practical depends on Logical/Ethical only and Te is way more practical than Ti so, if you consider yourself practical, you may even be not an LII.

    What I'm trying to say is that it's ok not to go deeper and deeper (which you pointed out to be even dangerous) but that it's also important not to neglect too many core information, which may lead you to mistype.

  2. #32
    Junior Member DestroyTheSpineless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Straylight View Post
    ILIs cannot stand incompetence in other people and have a very low tolerance for it. Also, because they truly do not care at all what other people think or feel about them, they are not concerned with whether being critical of others would put them in a bad spot or not.
    In my questionnaire this is exactly what I wrote:

    "I like to work with people that do what should be done. I can’t stand incompetence, inaccuracy and distraction.";
    "I don’t care about others’ thoughts on me and my actions.".

    Quote Originally Posted by Straylight View Post
    ILI belongs to "irrational" which is the exact opposite of all these things: they are usually late, they start things but don't finish them, people see them as lazy or drifting from one thing to another frequently, they are more spontaneous and do not plan things in exact detail, nor do they stick to plans very well as they tend to constantly adjust and change things along the way, often ending up somewhere totally different from where they wanted to be at first.
    I think this is completely wrong for ILIs. ILI's leading functions is Ni aka Time. Punctuality is one of their main traits, most of the times arriving early at meetings.

  3. #33
    Member Straylight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    INTj Ne
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DestroyTheSpineless View Post
    I think this is completely wrong for ILIs. ILI's leading functions is Ni aka Time. Punctuality is one of their main traits, most of the times arriving early at meetings.
    Rationality and irrationality - Wikisocion

    You are clearly a rational type.

    On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Rationality-Irrationality by Trehov and Tsypin - Wikisocion
    Formerly known as "Abraxas" on Personality Cafe, now retired.

  4. #34
    Member Straylight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    INTj Ne
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DestroyTheSpineless View Post
    How can you type yourself as LII when you affirm that you don't value Fe? It's your suggestive function and it should be the one you seek to make your Ti/Fe axis stronger. You're right about not considering some overly-complicated Socionics aspects (such as Reinin dichotomies, I hate those) but functions are the basis. You can't just ignore them. Also, I don't think that being practical depends on Logical/Ethical only and Te is way more practical than Ti so, if you consider yourself practical, you may even be not an LII.

    What I'm trying to say is that it's ok not to go deeper and deeper (which you pointed out to be even dangerous) but that it's also important not to neglect too many core information, which may lead you to mistype.
    You need to be willing to reject anything and completely redesign the entire system if empirical evidence contradicts the predictions and descriptions of the system.

    You're already showing the signs of a person who tends not to realize how subtle the differences are between two different types. It is never night-and-day. Emphasis is given to particular characteristics in order to characterize slight difference not extreme ones. At the end of the day, everyone is a human being, first. And second, there are many influences outside of personality that weigh on a person's cognitive patterns. Do not presume to elevate personality to some kind of Theory of Everything when it comes to explanatory power. It is totally inappropriate for you to ignore the core information of psychology itself, before you challenge me for ignoring the presumptions of a fringe theory.
    Formerly known as "Abraxas" on Personality Cafe, now retired.

  5. #35
    Junior Member DestroyTheSpineless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Straylight View Post
    You need to be willing to reject anything and completely redesign the entire system if empirical evidence contradicts the predictions and descriptions of the system.

    You're already showing the signs of a person who tends not to realize how subtle the differences are between two different types. It is never night-and-day. Emphasis is given to particular characteristics in order to characterize slight difference not extreme ones. At the end of the day, everyone is a human being, first. And second, there are many influences outside of personality that weigh on a person's cognitive patterns. Do not presume to elevate personality to some kind of Theory of Everything when it comes to explanatory power. It is totally inappropriate for you to ignore the core information of psychology itself, before you challenge me for ignoring the presumptions of a fringe theory.
    Wait. We were talking about Socionics, right? Who said that Socionics is the "Theory of Everything"? You can't blame me just because I was pointing out a mistake. You can understand even the whole world of psychology (better than me, this is sure) but as long as you're wrong about something related to Socionics you cannot reject my corrections. What's the point of ignoring the functions in a theory based on the functions? Also, I'm really astonished by your diagnosis of me being a "person who tends not to realize how subtle the differences are between two different types". You're exaggerating this concept so much that I should feel like affected by a mental illness or something. Is this what you mean?

  6. #36
    Junior Member DestroyTheSpineless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    29

    Default

    I read it. I don't know. I might be rational as you suggested. But I could be an ILI-Te (rational subtype) as well.

    Maybe it can be helpful to explain it better: I do make plans. For example I think "ok, today I'm going to study this number of page" but I rarely do what I had planned before. This is why I wrote "I don't like structure but I need it". It's like it helps me to feel safe. But then, when I have finally understood that there will be no problem for finishing a task on time, I don't need that structure anymore.

    My friends say I'm quite adaptable and flexible. I tend to disagree with them because I don't always feel good in a constantly changing environment. But in the end I realize I'm much more comfortable than them all. Another practical example. Last month, due to a mistake in the exam planning, my school advised our class that we would have taken our Geography exam in just 5 days instead of 40, as established. There was panic everywhere, everybody was going crazy, me too. We had to study a whole book in a few hours. I don't know why, it turned out to be easy. It took me just 3 days, while others had to cheat during the whole exam session. I hope I wrote it in a decent way.

    Even now, I should be studying art, according to my plans. But I'm not. To summarize: "I make plans, it's just that I don't follow them".

  7. #37
    Member Straylight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    INTj Ne
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DestroyTheSpineless View Post
    Wait. We were talking about Socionics, right? Who said that Socionics is the "Theory of Everything"? You can't blame me just because I was pointing out a mistake. You can understand even the whole world of psychology (better than me, this is sure) but as long as you're wrong about something related to Socionics you cannot reject my corrections. What's the point of ignoring the functions in a theory based on the functions? Also, I'm really astonished by your diagnosis of me being a "person who tends not to realize how subtle the differences are between two different types". You're exaggerating this concept so much that I should feel like affected by a mental illness or something. Is this what you mean?
    I'm not sure why you're being so defensive about this. All I said was, be open-minded and critical. Demand rigorous explanation and falsifiable evidence. Socionics is barely a theory. It's a framework of speculations held together by handfuls of case examples drawn from a mostly eastern european sample base. There's no problem with rejecting fundamental premises, and by rejecting a few that doesn't mean I don't understand the system or that everything I have to say is wrong.

    For example, if the type description of an LII or ILI or whatever else gives a certain assignment of functions, and explains why it has to be these functions, in this order, and so on and so forth, you can throw any of that out the window at the drop of a hat. None of it is explicitly true, and only implicit because of the "rules" of the model. The model can be entirely wrong. For example, are you telling me that Socionics is so stone-cut and objectively indisputable that exceptions to a given standard type can't exist? Yeah, right. That's not how reality works, especially not in a soft-science like psychology.

    No matter who composes what, or thinks up whatever, you need to be prepared to dispute everything and re-write things. Being "correct" is not a matter of conforming to the rules and laws of an ordered system. Being correct means you are correct as a point of fact. In my case, about my type for instance, I am an LII in every way, except that I tend not to always value Fe. Most of the time, I don't value Fe. So we have to ask, why does that happen? What explains this deviation from the standard? You want to leap straight to a mistype. To me that shows a lack of maturity - it is an extreme and uncalled for leap of logic. There are all kinds of more common sense explanations. For example, it could merely be circumstantial. Do you know me? Do you know the details of my life on a daily basis? No. It requires some reflection and honest analysis, and as it turns out, after years of doing this sort of thing, I can come up with quite a few possibilities that would all be perfectly valid explanations, in addition to being a mistype.

    And that is all that I've done in this thread. I've suggested a possibility, given my interpretation of what you had to say so far. I'm truly sorry that figuring out your own type is so hard for you, even after over a year of research. If it is any consolation, I began my research in 2009, when I first joined Personality Cafe, another website very similar to this one and perhaps a bit more popular at this point. I retired from there over a year ago, but I was active in the community and contributed many useful threads. I've spent 8 years studying Socionics and MBTI and Enneagram and Big 5 and MMPI and various personality systems, in addition to minoring in cognitive psychology at university. In fact, my major is computer science with a concentration in machine learning, and most of my graduate work involves research into the features of AGI, one of which is how personality develops.

    I'm not saying that makes me an expert or an authority, but it's just to show that I've probably read the same books as you and my analysis draws from the same things you've read, so if we disagree, it is probably not a matter of one person being right and the other being wrong, but rather, the topic we are discussing (psychology) is sufficiently "soft" and subjective for there to be many different points of view. To be fair, my approach is extremely rigorous and scientifically demanding, so I don't buy into the assumptions of this system very much, thus I am very critical of it and make many personal adjustments to what I consider to make more sense, and be more in-line with generally accepted psychological facts. And as a result, I do tend to "break the rules" of the system, but this does not mean I am wrong about your type. It means I don't see type as rigidly conforming with the expectations of the system as such.
    Formerly known as "Abraxas" on Personality Cafe, now retired.

  8. #38
    Junior Member DestroyTheSpineless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Straylight View Post
    I'm not sure why you're being so defensive about this. All I said was, be open-minded and critical. Demand rigorous explanation and falsifiable evidence. Socionics is barely a theory. It's a framework of speculations held together by handfuls of case examples drawn from a mostly eastern european sample base. There's no problem with rejecting fundamental premises, and by rejecting a few that doesn't mean I don't understand the system or that everything I have to say is wrong.

    For example, if the type description of an LII or ILI or whatever else gives a certain assignment of functions, and explains why it has to be these functions, in this order, and so on and so forth, you can throw any of that out the window at the drop of a hat. None of it is explicitly true, and only implicit because of the "rules" of the model. The model can be entirely wrong. For example, are you telling me that Socionics is so stone-cut and objectively indisputable that exceptions to a given standard type can't exist? Yeah, right. That's not how reality works, especially not in a soft-science like psychology.

    No matter who composes what, or thinks up whatever, you need to be prepared to dispute everything and re-write things. Being "correct" is not a matter of conforming to the rules and laws of an ordered system. Being correct means you are correct as a point of fact. In my case, about my type for instance, I am an LII in every way, except that I tend not to always value Fe. Most of the time, I don't value Fe. So we have to ask, why does that happen? What explains this deviation from the standard? You want to leap straight to a mistype. To me that shows a lack of maturity - it is an extreme and uncalled for leap of logic. There are all kinds of more common sense explanations. For example, it could merely be circumstantial. Do you know me? Do you know the details of my life on a daily basis? No. It requires some reflection and honest analysis, and as it turns out, after years of doing this sort of thing, I can come up with quite a few possibilities that would all be perfectly valid explanations, in addition to being a mistype.

    And that is all that I've done in this thread. I've suggested a possibility, given my interpretation of what you had to say so far. I'm truly sorry that figuring out your own type is so hard for you, even after over a year of research. If it is any consolation, I began my research in 2009, when I first joined Personality Cafe, another website very similar to this one and perhaps a bit more popular at this point. I retired from there over a year ago, but I was active in the community and contributed many useful threads. I've spent 8 years studying Socionics and MBTI and Enneagram and Big 5 and MMPI and various personality systems, in addition to minoring in cognitive psychology at university. In fact, my major is computer science with a concentration in machine learning, and most of my graduate work involves research into the features of AGI, one of which is how personality develops.

    I'm not saying that makes me an expert or an authority, but it's just to show that I've probably read the same books as you and my analysis draws from the same things you've read, so if we disagree, it is probably not a matter of one person being right and the other being wrong, but rather, the topic we are discussing (psychology) is sufficiently "soft" and subjective for there to be many different points of view. To be fair, my approach is extremely rigorous and scientifically demanding, so I don't buy into the assumptions of this system very much, thus I am very critical of it and make many personal adjustments to what I consider to make more sense, and be more in-line with generally accepted psychological facts. And as a result, I do tend to "break the rules" of the system, but this does not mean I am wrong about your type. It means I don't see type as rigidly conforming with the expectations of the system as such.
    Ok, I've finally understood your points here. You're right. Maybe I'm too strict when it comes to consider Socionics rules/information. So, can I ask you (besides what you've already written) what makes you think I'm an LII. I feel like I always need more information. Since you are an LII yourself, it would be great if you shared your thoughts abut what we have in common, at least on a superficial level.

  9. #39
    Member Straylight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    INTj Ne
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DestroyTheSpineless View Post
    Ok, I've finally understood your points here. You're right. Maybe I'm too strict when it comes to consider Socionics rules/information. So, can I ask you (besides what you've already written) what makes you think I'm an LII. I feel like I always need more information. Since you are an LII yourself, it would be great if you shared your thoughts abut what we have in common, at least on a superficial level.
    I am glad that we can come to terms. I am sorry if I sounded rude at any point or caused offense. I understand how frustrating it can be to be uncertain of your type. As I said, I was uncertain for many years. It is a difficult subject, with a great deal of room for different possibilities due to the subjectivity of the system.

    I believe you could be either an ILI or a LII. At least, I am fairly certain you are one of these two types. I lean towards LII because the overall tone of your OP seems LII. You used the term "analytical" many times, as well as "mathematics", both of these are typically associated with favoring Ti. However, there are discrepancies. You pointed out a few, for example when you quoted me and mentioned that you can't stand incompetence and you don't care what people think about you. It is true, these show you do not value Fe very much if at all, and might value Te as a creative function. There is the possibility of this leading to an ILI type conclusion.

    Some people responded with very good observations about your feelings as shown in your OP. There seemed to be a consensus for ILI as a type conclusion, and that may be the way to go for now. I confess, I am not good at reading people's feelings or understanding their emotions, and you would be the best judge of your own feelings anyway. It is simply in my nature to always play devil's advocate for contrarian opinions, whenever I see everyone agreeing on a specific thing. I like to consider every point of view, and deconstruct a conclusion by analysis into only what is explicitly true, followed by what is implicitly true given the explicit facts, and then typically this leaves room for a variety of possible interpretations of the data, and as a result, I cannot come to any conclusion. Thus, I abstain from most topics.

    Perhaps the above paragraph is also helpful to you in understanding what type you might be? If you find you have the same approach, you could be an LII like me. You can see how, because I am so rigorous in my analysis and logic, my standards are so demanding that I cannot form a conclusion, and thus, my expressive function/creative function is to offer up many possibilities and suggestions, and to encourage further investigation. This is how I was able to finally decide on my own type being LII (Ti lead, Ne creative).

    If instead, you find that you tend to express only your opinions and conclusions, and you are drawn to create decisive final answers to things, you can see how that would indicate your creative function is Te - especially if you like those conclusions to be practical, competent, and based on solid facts. Especially if you tend see many possibilities, but keep them private to yourself rather than offering them up for consideration, you can perhaps see how that might show a lead Ni function, because your intuitive perspective is kept introverted.

    I do not know you very well so it is up to you, but if it were me, I would look at the situation that way, asking myself how I tend to create, and what I tend to create in the world around me. In my personal experience and throughout my study I have found that when taking a function-based approach to understanding a person's type, it is always the first two functions that are the most obvious - and in socionics especially, I find the creative function is probably the most clear indicator of a person's type.
    Formerly known as "Abraxas" on Personality Cafe, now retired.
    Likes DestroyTheSpineless liked this post

  10. #40
    Junior Member DestroyTheSpineless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Straylight View Post
    I am glad that we can come to terms. I am sorry if I sounded rude at any point or caused offense. I understand how frustrating it can be to be uncertain of your type. As I said, I was uncertain for many years. It is a difficult subject, with a great deal of room for different possibilities due to the subjectivity of the system.

    I believe you could be either an ILI or a LII. At least, I am fairly certain you are one of these two types. I lean towards LII because the overall tone of your OP seems LII. You used the term "analytical" many times, as well as "mathematics", both of these are typically associated with favoring Ti. However, there are discrepancies. You pointed out a few, for example when you quoted me and mentioned that you can't stand incompetence and you don't care what people think about you. It is true, these show you do not value Fe very much if at all, and might value Te as a creative function. There is the possibility of this leading to an ILI type conclusion.

    Some people responded with very good observations about your feelings as shown in your OP. There seemed to be a consensus for ILI as a type conclusion, and that may be the way to go for now. I confess, I am not good at reading people's feelings or understanding their emotions, and you would be the best judge of your own feelings anyway. It is simply in my nature to always play devil's advocate for contrarian opinions, whenever I see everyone agreeing on a specific thing. I like to consider every point of view, and deconstruct a conclusion by analysis into only what is explicitly true, followed by what is implicitly true given the explicit facts, and then typically this leaves room for a variety of possible interpretations of the data, and as a result, I cannot come to any conclusion. Thus, I abstain from most topics.

    Perhaps the above paragraph is also helpful to you in understanding what type you might be? If you find you have the same approach, you could be an LII like me. You can see how, because I am so rigorous in my analysis and logic, my standards are so demanding that I cannot form a conclusion, and thus, my expressive function/creative function is to offer up many possibilities and suggestions, and to encourage further investigation. This is how I was able to finally decide on my own type being LII (Ti lead, Ne creative).

    If instead, you find that you tend to express only your opinions and conclusions, and you are drawn to create decisive final answers to things, you can see how that would indicate your creative function is Te - especially if you like those conclusions to be practical, competent, and based on solid facts. Especially if you tend see many possibilities, but keep them private to yourself rather than offering them up for consideration, you can perhaps see how that might show a lead Ni function, because your intuitive perspective is kept introverted.

    I do not know you very well so it is up to you, but if it were me, I would look at the situation that way, asking myself how I tend to create, and what I tend to create in the world around me. In my personal experience and throughout my study I have found that when taking a function-based approach to understanding a person's type, it is always the first two functions that are the most obvious - and in socionics especially, I find the creative function is probably the most clear indicator of a person's type.
    Thanks. I'll consider it. I think it won't be easy at all. By the way, that's how I like to spend my free time, there will be no problem.

Similar Threads

  1. INFJ? or INTJ? or INTP? or ISTP?
    By mwv6r in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-23-2012, 08:57 PM
  2. INFP, INTP, or INTJ?
    By Fairymouse in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-27-2010, 06:08 PM
  3. Best friend: INTP or INTJ?
    By LEVINA in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-16-2009, 09:49 PM
  4. An INTP or INTJ Says Hi
    By skycloud86 in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-09-2009, 04:25 PM
  5. A Girl I Know, INTP or INTJ?
    By Orangey in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-20-2009, 07:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO